Slashdot Mirror
Breathalyzer Source Code Revealed
Nonillion writes "New Jersey attorney Evan M. Levow was finally able to get an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey forcing the manufacturer of the popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 to reveal the source code. Levow turned the code over to experts, Base One Technologies, to analyze. Initially, Base One found that, contrary to Draeger's protestations that the code was proprietary, the code consisted mostly of general algorithms: 'That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary.' In other words, the 'trade secrets' claim which manufacturers were hiding behind was completely without merit." Following up an earlier discussion here, the state of Minnesota has (without explanation) missed a deadline to turn over the code for a different breathalyzer.
The "code" probably digests an 8 bit unsigned char output of a A/D converter, a signal from the "alcohol detecterizer chip", the innards of which are probably proprietary. Then, if [quantized signal] is greater than X, then light the yellow light, if greater than [X+Y], light the red light and make a beep sound.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
You must first blow into this tube before your Slashdot post is accepted.
Processing... Processing... Done! (31 errors ignored)
Sorry, your blood alcohol is over the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
I didn't know SCO made breathalizers.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You mean, the creator of an intellectual work thinks it's more creative than it really is? That very rarely happens.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
if ( drunk ) {
goto JAIL;
}
Almost any firmware is just a collection of general algorithms. Calibration, self test, filters, look-up/calculations... I'm not subrised that there's nothing amazing in there. That they don't have any funky algorithms does not mean that the firmware is not a trade secret. It still takes significant engineering/test/validation effort to get to a working device.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I've been thinking about DUI laws in the US and how the laws are just the second coming of prohibition of liquor. Why else would they take two legal activities like drinking alcohol and driving, and make it criminal. Yes, I understand people get hurt by drivers under influence. But lets be real and compare it to teens getting into accidents, senior citizens getting into accidents, sleep deprived individuals getting into accidents, etc. Think about it... You don't see people being tested for reaction speeds when taking driver tests!! You don't see people being tested for intelligence when taking driver tests!! You don't see people being tested for decision making ability when taking driver tests!! If people had to pass these types of tests we wouldn't have so many traffics jams. Think about it, why have some states in the US that use whisky plates (plates for cars owned by individuals convicted of a DUI) run out and had to expand the letters used.
PS People who drink and get into accidents should be prosecuted as if they had reckless intent.
Sorry, your blood alcohol is under the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
There. Fixed it for you =]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
When the guys the attorney hired to check the code don't find anything, and his guy gets fucked anyways.
The reason why no source code has been released in MN is that the manufacturer of the breathalyzer in that case, CMI, refuses to hand it over to anyone. They are asserting that it is a trade secret, and are resting on the fact that there is little a court in MN can do to force them, a Kentucky corporation, to hand it over.
I represent three clients in Phoenix, AZ, who have been trying to get the code from CMI for the same reasons, and have been met with nothing but frustration. Fortunately, a couple judges here have agreed with the defense that examination of the code is necessary to mount a defense, under due process grounds. We (myself and a number of other attorneys) have had dismissals in a total of about 11 cases in the City of Phoenix, all of which are being appealed. There are a few cases in superior court that will be appealed shortly as well. It's been a busy time in the world of DUI litigation.
Unfortunately, many judges here do not see the relevance. Further, they have enacted legislation to prevent the preclusion of breathalyzer results, despite the inability to examine the "schematics or source code" of the machines.
Believe me when I tell you - these machines are unreliable, and subject to many errors, most glaringly the result of RFI screwing up the results. I've read the findings of the independent lab on the NJ case, and it does raise many concerns. My biggest problem is that law enforcement can essentially hide behind a foreign corporation, and a jury never hears about many of the problems at hand.
I'll agree with you up until his final point:
PS People who drink and get into accidents should be prosecuted as if they had reckless intent.
Which I happen to agree with.
That is really the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say on Slashdot (that's saying a lot).... good god you're a moron
I like the part about "diagnostics substitute a favorable reading" for out of range values. Very nice. The sensor mechanism could be totally foo-bared, but the diagnostics (which are supposed to catch the foo-bar) simply substitute a favorable reading. Nice.
Statistically, intoxicated drivers are far more likely to be involved in fatal car accidents than any other group out there (save perhaps the legally blind, who don't often get into the drivers seat of a car, one will note). There is a clear correlation between drinking and driving and injuring, maiming and killing people (including the driver, passengers and any poor bastard that gets in the way).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How can you know for sure this source code is what ran the breathalyzerthingie in question? Unless every result also prints a checksum against the current firmware and RAM, this is useless. I assume the machine IS reseted after every measurement to a known state.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
For the record, it's also illegal to drive if you're legally blind, under most circumstances. One of my best friends is legally blind. He does not have a driver's license; he was told that if he were to apply for a license, he probably wouldn't be given one, and if he were given one, it would have clear restrictions only allowing him to drive in rural areas and during daylight.
So, yes, the GP is in idiot. There are laws barring other groups of impaired people from driving.
My guess is that 99% of proprietary code contains a big trade secret: The secret of just how crappy the source code really is.
If they were expecting their code to be opened to the public, they would have taken the effort to fix up "spaghetticode.inc" which contains the single comment "//This works though i'm not sure why... clean up l8r!!!!".
yeah, but...
DUI is DUI, and perhaps reckless endangerment is one of the things they try you on (no experience)
but the poster is right - there are many more things that need to be looked at when issuing a license other than "read this chart"
I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
As much as I agree with everyone else who has replied to you and said you're an idiot.. I can make a better point against drink driving laws: until harm is done, no charges should be pressed. If you're driving erratically, the police should have the right to take you out of your car and deliver you home, leaving your car, locked, on the side of the road. Being charged for a crime that *might* have occurred is just wrong.
How we know is more important than what we know.
... there's no real secret to making your product? I can see companies wanting to hide that!
This space available.
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095.
4. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled
5. Implemented Design Lacks Positive Feedback: The software controls electrical lines, which switch devices on and off, such as an air pump, infrared source, etc. The design does not provide a monitoring sensory line (loop back) for the software to detect that the device state actually changed. This means that the software assumes the change in state is always correct, but it cannot verify the action.
6. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low.
7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substitute d: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations.
8. Range Limits Are Substituted for Incorrect Average Measurements: In a manner similar to the diagnostics, voltage values are read and averaged into a value.
9. Code Does Not Detect Data Variations
10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times
11. Timing Problems: The design of the code is to run in timed units of 8.192 milliseconds, by means of an interrupt signal to a handler, which then signals the main program control that it can continue to the next segment.
12. Defects In Three Out Of Five Lines Of Code: A universal tool in the open-source community, called Lint, was used to analyze the source code written in C. This program uncovers a range of problems from minor to serious problems that can halt or cripple the program operation.
Sorry if this is redundant, I didn't see it listed anywhere that I could tell up front. If you note that list is pretty serious. They picked a "top 5" type thing for the other link, but this one is pretty accurate. Note these guys were called in as expert witnesses and their information on their website shows they have extensive experience working with government. If these guys find flaws that is definitely pretty serious.
Should shooting a gun at a crowd be legal if by some chance you happen not to hit anyone?
The unfortunate reality that the laws are trying to deal with, though, is that it is essentially impossible for law enforcement to spot all the drunks on the road, and deliver you home as you suggest (imagine the logistics of that: you could put all the police in this country on that duty full time!, and still not have enough cops).
Worse, it won't even be near to possible for them to indentify all of the sufficiently impaired so as to protect the rest of us from their idiocy.
What drunk driving laws do is create an incentive for everyone to voluntarily police themselves, and to act more responsibly. If you know you run a risk of a long incarceration just for drunk driving, you may not take my life into your hands by getting behind the wheel and driving the same roads as I do. If you (or most of these drunk idiots) know that the only penalty for getting caught is being taken home, then you'll be much more encouraged to just take your chances with my life, rather than deal with the inconvenience and cost of a taxi ride.
Drunk driving laws disencentivize behaviors on an individual basis that normally have unfortunate incentives on an individual basis, but have an extremely high average cost for the rest of society. This is also why no-sleepy-driving and no-cellphone-driving laws are a similarly good idea.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I don't have the statistics on hand, but I believe Asian females are several times more likely to cause accidents than drunks, yet they continue to be allowed to drive at all times. Even drunks are allowed to drive when they're sober.
Have you looked carefully at your code to see what happens if you're not drunk? Personally, I'd like to see an exit(0); in that else section.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Given how high the likelihood of an accident is when a drunk driver is behind the wheel, and given how serious the accidents can get when they occur, don't you think it's bordering on criminal to drive a car while drunk?
It sounds like you're saying that if you walk down a street, randomly firing your automatic weapon in all directions that the cops should be allowed to disarm you and send you on your way, but you shouldn't be charged with anything unless you actually hit someone or damage something.
Anyone who puts themselves in control of a speeding chunk of steel while drunk should be charged with reckless endangerment IMO.
"7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substituted: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement..."
So, if I blow into the device as soon as it boots, I will always be tested negative??
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
Is this when you come back with "My brother/sister/foster-mother/lover was killed by a Drunk Driver and attempt an appeal to emotion?
Blar.
Let me ask another question: would you be willing to let a surgeon found trying to operate continue? Or would you have him stopped and removed from theatre, even if he appeared to be behaving normally? Or an airline pilot?
Whenever there is a fine involved, it becomes no longer about social good, but about revenue raising.
In California, for example, police statistics have shown that crash rates did not go down when stronger DUI laws were enacted. Inherently, driving a vehicle is the dangerous activity.. drink driving just gives people an acceptable scapegoat.
How we know is more important than what we know.
By your logic...if someone was caught bringing high explosive onto an airplane (he can be drunk and stupid, who knows?), he should be simply send home because he didn't to kill any body??
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
The first point seemed unreasonable, as temporary code will always make it in, and such. But my main problem is with the second point (after which I stopped reading). The first reading has the least weight, and each subsequent value has more weight than previous readings. The inability to get such a simple detail correct casts a huge pale over their entire analysis.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
That's not a very good argument. Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. Therefore, doing it is breaking the law regardless of whether or not you injure someone else. We can add on to that that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that every driver has a responsibility to drive safely. Impaired driving (without regard to the source of impairment) is inherently unsafe and puts everyone else on the road at risk of injury or death. That risk is high enough to justify restricting or revoking said privilege until the impairment is no longer a problem. If we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion then attempted murder would often not be a crime. Nor would sexual assault unless "harm" was done. Harassment and stalking are fair game. Maybe it depends on how you define harm.
On top of that your proposal would leave roads and highways littered with several-thousand-pound, stationary, car-like obstacles that would make your evening commute more like Spy Hunter than you'd really like. Maybe a better option would be to impound your car and let you pay a nice hefty fine for the privilege of being a jackass and unnecessarily putting other people at risk.
Or just don't drink and drive. That works 100% of the time it's tried.
Yeah, you're right! And if someone has a pet dinosaur and they take it into a movie theater, shouldn't they have to buy everyone extra popcorn?
Cause that's about how stupid your argument is.. if you can't participate in an adult debate without making stupid analogies or appealing to emotional crap, don't participate.
How we know is more important than what we know.
How we know is more important than what we know.
That they don't have any funky algorithms does not mean that the firmware is not a trade secret.
Then what DOES make something a trade secret? The mere fact the software is compiled and/or programmed onto a chip? An EULA? An"anti-circumvention device" as defined by the DMCA? Seriously, where should we draw the line with "trade secrets" when it comes to protective legislation? The only "trade secret" revealed here is the fact that the manufacturer in question embedded alpha-quality software in a product released to production. That sort of a "trade secret" is generally considered willful negligence or fraud.
It still takes significant engineering/test/validation effort to get to a working device.
It is apparent that little to no such QA was done on this particular device, which to me sounds like a grave mistake considering the device is trusted to keep drunk drivers off the road. Keep in mind that this device is theoretically able to report just as many false negatives as false positives, do not only would it be possible for a sober driver to be falsely charged with a DUI (as this lawyer claims) it is also possible that countless drunk drivers falsely blew UNDER the limit and were allowed to continue on their way and put others in harms way. That could be considered criminal negligence on the part of those who engineered this device.
Just because it takes effort (in time and money) "to get a working device" even when there is nothing novel in its functionality does not mean that those putting forth the effort should be able to hide from scrutiny behind a "trade secret". The systems I work on are sometimes involve safety interlocks. My employer subjects their software division's development practices to audits from government agencies. Our clients often stipulate that they must have access to source code (though since we are a closed-source shop we never grant redistribution rights). Even if there are novel implementations or "trade secrets" there are legal instruments to accommodate for them and still remain accountable.
These "breathalyzer" devices used in the field are far from trade secrets--I remember plans for one in Radio Electronics years ago that was said to be quite reliable as a preliminary measurement device (didn't report a specific value, but had a "traffic-light-interface" of 3 LEDs). The "trade secret" excuse is flimsy and shameful. It is worse than the whole Diebold voting machine debacle because it can directly affect a person's safety and well-being.
The biggest is that many people don't know that, and most aren't told. You are correct that many jurisdictions all you to choose a blood test. Also many allow you to demand that a separate sample is kept your your defense team to send to their own lab. However I've never heard of any jurisdiction where they have to tell you that. So it's the kind of thing most people just aren't going to know. They assume that the breathalyzer is accurate and don't know to challenge that.
This is especially true because unfortunately, DUI cases aren't treated quite like others with regards to rights. While you can get a lawyer and all that the police will tell you, and they'll be right, that if you refuse the test you'll face severe penalties just for refusing. Thus you can see how people would consent without knowing their rights and without consulting council.
Another problem is simply one with the idea of a blood test itself. Many people, like me HATE needles. I'd hate to be in the position of either having to have something done to me that scares me, by someone I don't trust, or being convicted based on bad evidence. In addition to that there are religions that object to blood tests. So it's kind of unfair to say that you have to do something against your religion to prove your innocence, seems more like they should just make their fucking device work.
So yes, you probably have that right (as always, this is not legal advice, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction and such if you need such advice) but the question is do you know it and will you be of present enough mind to exercise it?
Per http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/alcohol_tol erance.html [california...riving.org] there have been studies showning that alcoholics with BAC levels in the leathal range not showing any signs of impairment. So anyone charged with driving in excess of a level doesn't mean that they are actually impaired.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Where have you been?
Actually, I can tell you here in my (great drunk driving state of WI) that drinking while blasted does increase the probabilty of causing an accident.
.10 (the former legal limit) or .09 (now illegal) or .08 (borderline illegal) getting shafted LOOOONNGG before they are at the level of impairment of even talking on a cell phone, who are then subjected to what is basically a poorly built, poorly maintained piece of witchcraft known as a breathalyser. You might as well be attempting to test body thetans or use a polygraph. The science is that bad.
.08. The emphasis on this forces me to conclude the people pushing for the DUI laws stiffer than they already are have an alternative agenda that ends with "prohibition mark II".
And, I agree with you it is a criminal act that should be punished after a day in court.
HOWEVER,
We are not talking about the guys who are falling down smashed can't get the key in the door drunk.
We are talking about folks at
I see lots and lots of behavior and drivers on the road doing stuff WAY MORE DANGEROUS than someone getting home after happy hour toting a
'alcohol related accidents' include events when a non-drunk crosses the double-yellow and crashes head-on into a drunk driver. I'm skeptical.
Blar.
my mother went blind over a period of about 8 years and never lost her license. Funny thing was when she went in to get it renewed, she had to put the application about 4 inches from her face and stare at it through her coke-bottle glasses, and the lady behind the counter didn't even bat an eye.
oh wait, it was Kentucky, nevermind.
Reminds me of "voice-printing", which was basically manual speaker recognition using spectrograms. The police who used it were undertrained, and *just slightly* biased against the accused, so the whole technique became discredited, perhaps more than necessary.
c s/voiceprints/1.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensi
---
Why procrastinate now when you can procrastinate tomorrow?
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I once made a similar argument that a car is a weapon, one which is far more likely to kill an innocent passer-by, even one who is not even operating a motor vehicle at the time, and thus it just common sense that drinking and driving is ridiculously stupid, dangerous and should be outlawed. You wouldn't fire a gun while drunk would you ?
... if it is then the vice president of the USA should be locked up for operating a deadly weapon while intoxicated and nearly taking someone's life".
To which my wife replied "It's not illegal to get pissed drunk and take a gun and go hunting... well at least I don't think it is
Obviously you've never worked for the government. :)
While I do generally agree that laws should be restricted, as much as possible, to actual harm; I think this is one of the few places where deviation is a good thing. The potential for harm is fairly high, and the harm done is usually pretty drastic. If the only person who might be hurt by drunk driving was the drunk driver himself, I'd be all for decriminalizing it; however, that is not the case. By driving drunk a person is directly creating a dangerous situation to others, and without a good cause, that should not be happening.
Now, one could argue on the point at which someone is "drunk" and/or truly impaired, but this is just a line drawing fallacy. A testable line will need to be drawn somewhere, for the moment, it is what it is in various states. Is it the best place to put it? Who knows, but it will be set somewhere.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I've never heard of Base One, and I never would have guessed from their home page http://www.base-one.com/ that they could do what they did, but that has to be one of the more impressive "code reviews" I've seen. The code review encompasses hardware, software, testing, architecture, design - in short, a rather thorough analysis. Seeing all of those skills come together for an embedded system project is pretty impressive. (Consider that, at Draeger, it appears that almost none of those skills were bought to bear...)
So kudos to Base One. Great work.
Crappy moderation again. I really wish those closer to God than the rest of us here in Slashdot would eliminate this personal points of view moderation tactics. The post is a good one and raises many questions which are valid questions. The post also has generated discussion which is exactly what slashdot is all about.
So moderators - stop attacking the messenger ok?
There is a TV program which I do not watch called "Canada's worst drivers".
This program apparently is oriented to rehabilitating some of the worst drivers in the country - people which clearly should not be allowed on the road.
Many years ago I was in an accident caused by one of these people. I watched with disbelief while this person drove literally more than a car length and finally stopped when she hit my car. At no time during this did she ever look forward. She had her head turned to the left looking for oncoming traffic. Meanwhile I was to her right. This would have been 1001, 1002, 1003. I was thinking - Lady... you need to look where you are driving!
It was in the news that a kid was killed while sitting on a bus bench. The lady in question was trying to fetch the plant that fell off the seat while she was turning a corner.
Now - what we do see in the media are deliberatly distorted statistics. If the victim in the accident has had something to drink they stat "Alcohol was involved". The victim could be sound asleep in the passenger seat and there are cases of him being charged. 1) He wasn't operating the vehical. 2) he wasn't even awake. 3) He never operated the vehical. 4) it was his buddy who was driving him home and the car quit and his buddy went to get help.
While there are accidents caused by people who should not be driving because they are intoxicated, the truth is this is totally blown out of porportion. At 0.08% many people are not intoxicated at all. Others are intoxicated at 0.02%. And the post I am responding to correctly points out that some people are so compromised that they should never get a driver's license in the first place.
Then... we have a faulty machine testing a flawed premise. The flawed premise is that alcohol at a certain level makes everyone a criminal.
What we really need to do is get bad drivers off the road. IMHO tail gating is a far worse offence than driving with a little too much slosh. Of course the cops in this city like tail gaters.
Without measures like this, police brethalyser selection is distorted by powerful confirmation biases.
Given an honest belief that suspects that are given the brethalyser test are intoxicated, the natural selection bias is towards machines that read positive more often. Even without a single thought of "we need a machine that convicts regardless of guilt", that's what they will tend to get.
Allowing the defense to face the actual witness (the brethalyser) so to speak provides the needed negative feedback to drive selection back towards accurate impartial instruments even if only to make DUI charges stick in court.
More to the point, it can drive machine selection towards those that meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. If trials are going to favor the readout on a brethalyser, the machine should (for example) always round towards a lower reading when measuring or computing. For example, if there is any noise in a reading, the lowers is beyond reasonable doubt, the average is vaguely justifiable (though it is probably closer to a preponderance than it is beyond reasonable doubt) and the highest is just plain trying to get convictions regardless of merit. Otherwise it has the potential to accuse someone of DUI (to the extent that a machine can accuse) even if in fact componant tolerances may mean the difference between just over the limit vs. just under. After all, the machine is not suceptable to a jury judging if it seems unsure or knew it was close to the edge based on testimony.
A surprising number of measurement devices meant for scientific and medical purposes (as well as law enforcement) do NOT correctly handle significant digits, error bars, or rounding. Many programmers do not understand the importance of different rounding rules, and even think that add .5 then truncate is always correct.
I think it's great the source code is getting out, and that we'll find out which devices are crappy and which are better.
But in the end, I don't think any of this matters. Drunk drivers are not prosecuted based on roadside breathalyzer tests. They are prosecuted based on tests done back at the police station using either a blood test or a much better lab-quality breathalyzer. These instruments are regularly tested in a way that makes it easy to convince a jury of the validity of the results. I've seen some of the corresponding tests on a roadside breathalyzer, and they convinced me not to trust the device.
So, it's good advice to decline the roadside tests.
I'm with you.
If reaction time, inability to multi-task, and easy distraction are the effects of alcohol that make it so dangerous, then we need to baseline those attributes as part of the driver's license exam. People who score below a certain threshold should be considered "effectively drunk" and not allowed to drive.
If, however, it's the moral choice of lowering those attributes that makes people so angry, then we should punish other choices that have the same effect, such as talking on the cell phone, reading the newspaper, reading your email, or other stupid stuff.
But if it's just a matter of wanting to feel better than other people, wanting to feel self-righteous, wanting to punish people for mostly random acts of God, then by all means, let's reduce the BAC level even more.
No, by driving a person is directly creating a dangerous situation to others, and without a good cause, that should not be happening.
Driving drunk just makes it slightly more dangerous.
People would have you believe that there was some massive drop off in the number of crashes on the road when DUI laws were enacted. There wasn't.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is interesting.
The effect is that if your levels are dropping, it magnifies the drop, and if your levels are rising, it magnifies the rise. I'm not certain that this is a problem, as such. It might even be a benefit, on some level (especially if your levels are dropping.) Read on to see what I mean.
If you were to take ten readings, and they were rising from "1" to "10", then the correct average according to the report would be the sum of 1 to 10 divided by 10, or 5.5. That is, you would have ten readings and the average of them would be 5.5 even though your present reading was 10. This artificialy minimises your reading. Using the machine's algorithm, your "average" reading would be 9.001953.
If, on the other hand, your levels were descending from 10 to 1 in the ten readings, then the "correct" average is 5.5 still, but the machine would say your reading was 1.998047. Which is closer to your final reading.
OK, so what does this mean efffectively? Well, I guess the biggest concern is a residual alcohol effect, where you ahve alcohol in your mouth either from the beer you had between your knees, or from the mouthwash you quaffed at the last second. In this case, you would expect to spike the first reading. The machine's algorithm takes the spike into account, but minimizes its effect on your overall reading.
It should be noted that both algorithms have the same result for one or two blows. To maximise your results, you would need to insist on more than 4 blows, and only if the average reading was dropping each time.
10001001111001110110011000011101110
I think you just made the point that driving a car, even not drunk, is the same as firing off a weapon in a public place.
Which is why "you wouldn't fire a gun into a crowd" and other bullshit analogy is such a poor form of argument.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There's plenty of studies showing that talking on the phone impairs drivers more than a 0.08 BAC. If we accept the premise that drivers should be criminally liable for driving while impaired that means one of two things: a) the laws for driving while phoning are too lenient or b) the legal limit of blood alcohol content is too low.
Except....everyone has different tolerances. Like another on this thread said....not talking about those that are too smashed to drive, but, there are many out there that can drive just fine near .1 or maybe even more. This IS the case, otherwise there'd be many more wrecks and dwis. There are a ton of people on the road an any given time, especially at night.
We pick an arbitrary number, currently the far too low 0.08....and apply that to everybody? Roadblocks that catch people for no reason other than their choice of street to drive on? I don't think that's right. Sure if you're driving poorly, then you should be pulled over and investigated. But, if you're driving just fine....they should not be able to pull you over for no reason. And some method of better testing your abilities (reflex testing compared to same test when you get your license?) would be more fair. Also, lets take the revenue aspect out of the S=DWI and speeding laws....and see how active the cops are in enforcing the laws...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It would be wise not to rely on your logic when you are drunk.
The cheaper solution is to use logic earlier.
Yes, 0.08 is a bit low. You can get a DUI/DWI with lower than that, too.
Yes, it's a bit of a witch hunt. Banning giant parking lots at sports bars would more effective.
Besides, if it's deaths you are concerned with, a governor limiting car speed to less than 75 would save many lives, and be much cheaper than random tickets of patrol cars. But that may impact the sale of certain cars. Corporate profits are more important than lives of individuals of course.
I see the parent has been modded up. Good.
I am making another reply.
My wife had a driver's license.
My wife was totally disabled at the age of about 29. She was diagnosed terminally ill at the age of 26. By the time she was 30 she was having several seisures per day. nevertheless she had a driver's license. Nevertheless her driver's license was renewed without question when she turned 30.
Of course I never let her drive. The reason for the driver's license was Identification.
My point is that she was legally allowed to drive.
She died at 36 and was legally allowed to drive... at the time she was in an auxillary hospital.
My father passed away about a year ago. He was legally allowed to drive up until and including the day he died. I rode with him to my aunt's funeral. I can say for certain he should not have been allowed on the road. Fortunately he was not involved in any car accidents. The thing is his driving ability was bad because his judgment was was off.
During times of great personal stress it is normal that people's judgment will be way off. It would make sense for people to not drive during times like this. As a case in point, accident rates are reported to be at least double during say a divorce. Similarly accident rates are greatly increased with the death of a spouse.
IMHO the DUI laws are greatly blown out of porportion. Then on top of this we have the fact that most people have no way to determine whether they are over the limit or not.
As much as I hate to agree with the gp, there is a valid point there, even if calling prosecution of drunk driving modern prohibition is absurd. The valid point is that there are plenty of things that make drivers unsafe and the tests to determine competency are arbitrary. Blood alcohol content doesn't measure competency, it just measures a risk factor, of which there are many including age, rest and mood which are ignored. On any given day, despite the fact that I don't ever drive drunk, there is some reason to question my competency. It might be my eyesight or my mood, or just that I'm giving half of my conscious attention to a programming problem, but the issue is that my focus is rarely completely solely on the task of driving my car. Certainly the level varies between those times when I'm in heavy traffic and the times when I'm alone on the road, but I think it is fair to question whether our society's emphasis on one risk factor is a realistic reflection of the true dangers of the road.
I'm sorry to say that I don't really have a better solution than the standard of hoping that the watchful eyes of law enforcement will pick up on those who endanger the lives of others in the road, at least not a socially acceptable one. If I'm getting to make free suggestions though, I recommend that persons who have exhibited stability, sanity and a tendency to be the safest drivers be issued a permit to shoot up to one bad driver a year. Should such an absurdity come to pass, I just hope that I'm one of the gun toting vigalities rather than one of the careless and dead. Come to think of it, I'd probably get a job where I could use public transportation or bicycle to work if I had to take the risk, so it would be good for the environment too. See, guns do make things better!
Posting from Texas, the only state where "he needed killin" might convince a jury.
Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...
Sorry, this doesn't make sense. While I am no fan of Prohibition, on the war on some drugs, I believe it makes sense to make it illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, because alcohol is particularly damaging to coordination, in a way that few other influences are. This impact to coordination, perception and judgement happens to -every- user of alcohol, it happens -every- time you consume a sufficient amount of alcohol, and there is a significant, measurable, contribution to the death rate due to drunken driving. Add to this that the victims are often completely innocent and unconnected to the drinker, and drunk driving starts to look like a very sensible thing to prohibit.
.08% laws, or similar feel good extensions of the principal. The basic law, however, makes just as much sense as prohibiting people from dumping poisonous chemicals into drinking water. You are prohibiting behavior by one individual that can hurt another individual, who would have no reasonable way of protecting themselves without the prohibition existing. That is absolutely a reasonable place for lawmaking.
I do NOT feel the same about the zero tolerence laws, or the
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
The Army tested me for reaction time before issuing a military driver's license, but you have to realize that reaction time is a mote issue if your not actually paying attention.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Like calling a taxi or getting a designated driver?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
GP was over the top, but the ignorance implied by your blanket allegation that the post had not a shred of useful thought is surprising. You don't seem to realize the legal significance of a 'per-se' rule. DWI statutes establish a 'per-se' relationship between BAC (blood alcohol concentration) and illegal intoxication. This sort of legal policy should give you pause. Not only does it smack of arbitrariness it also offends what was once a basic principle of law: without a harm to redress there is no standing to protest. Meaning: we should be suspicious of laws which pro-actively punish a potential rather than a realized harm.
The arbitrariness declines depending on how the law is policed. If an officer stops erratic drivers, then tests BAC, we can more reasonably assume that the process is not unduly arbitrary; however, once officers adopt check-point tactics the question of arbitrariness arises.
Depends on the situation. Will the patient die if the operation is not performed immediately? Is the aircraft already in the air?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The rate of drivers involved in fatal accidents who had been drinking is over half during this hour
Well there's a surprise.
Did you know that the percentage of accidents near football stadiums involving football fans is shortly before and after football games is five times the percentage at other times? Quick, ban football! Being a football fan causes accidents!
So between 2 and 3 AM, twice as many accidents involve alcohol as during the rest of the day. Do you think MAYBE, just MAYBE, that might be because twice as many of the drivers on the road between 2 AM and 3 AM have been drinking?
That data is useless by itself. You have to not only know the percentage of drivers involved in accidents who have been drinking, but also know the percentage of all drivers on the road who have been drinking. If both numbers go up by the same amount, then drinking (on average) has no affect on accident rate. And if it goes up less, that means that the real culprits of accidents between 2 AM and 3 AM are probably the fact that it's dark and people are tired.
paintball
Actually, the breathalyzer is a painfully simple device, none of it is a trade secret. It's basically a pair of heated-wire anerometers in parallel, where both have a gas sample travelling at the same velocity, at the same temperature run through an anerometer.
A heated-wire anerometer works by running a current through a wire and measuring the voltage drop through the wire. The resistance will change with the speed and specific heat of the substance you're passing across the wire, because the substance will cool the heated wire based on a number of factors. A breathalyzer simply eliminates the speed measurement, and the other measurements, and what remains is the specific heat of the substance passing through the device. They simply run a reference gas in the opposite anerometer, and take the differential, and the alcohol will give a certain value.
Not a trade secret, unless something being common knowledge for all instrument engineers taught in the past 40 years is a trade secret.
It's been a long time.
According to what I was told in traffic school (generic speeding ticket, my only moving violation) you can get charged for DUI even if you have a designated driver.
You can get charged if you could've taken control of the vehicle or something like that. He mentioned a case where a man was buckled into the passenger's seat and the designated driver was going back to get their other drunk friend. The designated driver, who was NOT drunk, left the car and the AC on because it was summer and this is Phoenix, where summer means 100+ heat.
The man in the passenger's seat was charged with DUI.
But you're right: it's a very, very bad idea to drink & drive. You should have a cab or a designated driver if you've been out drinking any time recently. And you can test positive even in the morning after a night of hard drinking, so be careful. In my state, I should also mention that the standard is "the slightest bit of impairment" and that can apply to prescription / over-the-counter drugs as well, in theory.
So given their scary statistic that claimed some ridiculous percentage of drivers on the road were drunk (33%? or was it 66%? I forget...) I have to think that their methods of determining it are unreliable and we should be suspicious enough to ensure that they use reliable evidence in convicting someone of a serious felony like DUI.
I don't like the thought that bug in a 'magic box' can screw you over even if you've done nothing wrong and that there's no appeal.
My WITTY COMEBACK was killed by a drunk driver!
It's been a long time.
Well I read the article, and the points you mention do sound like they might be problems - but the general tone of TFA is somewhat hysterical, and I can sort of see the point of the manufacturer - anyone with enough knowledge who looks hard enough at a piece of complex software can find ways to discredit it and make it appear badly designed.
For example (from TFA):
Sections of the original code and modified code show evidence of using an experimental approach to coding, or use what is best described as the "trial and error" method. Several sections are marked as "temporary, for now".
If having comments saying "temporary, for now" equates to "an experimental approach to coding" then the we are in absurd land. It is perfectly reasonable to put, say, a non-optimal but fully functional sorting routine in, and then come back and replace it with something better later. As this was the first point, and it is obviously absurd, in mind the rest of the article is devalued and suspect.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
Traffic fines do not go to the police in Canada, all revenue goes to the Provincial government's general revenue which they do with as they please. Some communities who have their own police forces (the federal RCMP polices most small communities and many mid sized cities) do get a share of traffic fines back indirectly.
Anarchists never rule
It's a quote from a movie.
"Happy Gilmour".
Your post also is awarded no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
It's been a long time.
They're several times more likely to cause accidents, but they're not usually behind the wheel.
"Oh my god it's a cute asia--ARGH!"
It's been a long time.
Amen to that.
I argued in court that sexual intercourse and boxing are both legal activities but when I try to combine them it turns into this big drama!
I'd argue with you, but it's a moot point. You can't begin to believe the number of drunk drivers on the road at times. If you've ever been driving late at night, right around last call, you're literally very likely the only sober guy on the road.
It's been a long time.
The science isn't bad. You're testing the specific heat of a person's breath to determine alcohol content. The implementation may be bad, but the science is just as good as any of the other methods we use to determine what a substance is, which including running it through a long tube then burning it, beaming a ray of light or infra-red light through it, or passing it through a tube and seeing how long it takes to make it through.
It's been a long time.
There is nothing surprising about this. Our company writes software that controls the electric grid. The issues mentioned in the article (and many more) also exist in our code. It is possible to write a book on how not to design software based on examples from our code.
Just be thankful that the lights are still ON!
Yeah, I am an AC. I would like to keep my job, thanks.
I am still licensed to be a medical technologist, I spent a lot of time working in hospital chemistry labs with computerized equipment, and that software fails all kinds of reasonable criteria for calibrating and operating any equipment.
I might also add that driving is not a legal activity. It's licensed by the government. It's licensed because it's dangerous, and for the good of you and everyone else on the roads (or even just walking on the footpaths), we need to be confident in your driving ability. And drinking impairs your driving ability. So many drivers seem to think that driving is their given right when it really isn't, and that causes many problems.It's all well and good to force people to take responsibility for their actions after they sober up and the disaster has already happened. The measures against DUI are preventative. We don't actually want accidents to happen. It's not that we don't care what happens, as long as we have someone to crucify at the end, it's that we don't want accidents to happen. People who are drinking may not be able to make a rational decision as to whether to drive or not, so no matter how smashed they are, no matter how much responsibility we foist upon them, some will decide to drive.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Wow, you love making a huge argument out of "implied statements" and assumptions, don't ya?
I don't drink drive. I do encourage friends not to drink drive.
I'm just saying that the argument that a vehicle moving at 60 km/hr is only dangerous when the person in control of the vehicle is drunk is a fallacy and the fact that we're only willing to accept that cars are dangerous when there is alcohol involved is a hypocritical.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Just do away with DUI entirely... enforce the laws on the books, and maybe add a "you did something intentionally that made you more likely to be a dumbass" multiplier.
Weave into the next lane without signalling? That's a paddling.
Doing it while drunk? That's a triple paddling.
Doing it while on your phone? That's a triple paddling.
Doing it while eating? That's a triple paddling.
Doing it while catching your house plant? That's a triple paddling.
Punish the behavior enough (driving like a dumbass), and people will focus on avoiding that behavior.
The serious drunks? they were never going to follow anything anyway, so it doesn't make a real difference.
Why do alot of people not use their turn signals, even when there is time? Because "it's not a big deal".
You watched her drive in to you, and in no way honked or tried to get out of the way?
Perhaps the pot should not call the kettle black if both of them fail at defensive driving.
Sure it is - it assumes a fixed ratio of mouth alcohol:blood alcohol, doesn't compensate for things like bread in your teeth (which hold alcohol) or people like diabetics, who can register .03 stone cold sober. It's not all that good.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I don't own a car, either. However, I've also driven after having a few drinks - possibly even being over the legal limit - and I've never been pulled over, killed anyone, or wrecked my car as the result of it. Because when I'm over 0.08, I'm just not drunk. At most, I talk a little too much, and that's about it.
You fucking moralistic shitbag. I hope you die of a venereal disease.
I'm sorry, but this is no joking matter! It's estimated that over 10,000 points of karma are lost a year to drink-/.-posting. Ordinary, everyday nerds like you have lost face with their peers. They feel inadequate as their karma drops from Excellent to Good in the face of all the other Excellent nerds. It's been known for some particularly disgraced nerds to quit /. and start posting regularly on digg. That's right, it's not so funny now, is it?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I thought it would be instantly recognized and someone would reply with the response:
Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine.
But I thought it applies in this case. Sure there are other factors that can impare driving, and in most states they are treated the same. Even if you are drunk you can be charged with DWI driving while impared. If you have drunk to a level not impeding your driving ability you won't be pulled over unless you hit a roadblock on a holiday. There has been a lot of press about the dangers of driving while tired and if there was an objective test, of course they would punish tired drivers just the same. In my state those over a certain age must re certify their licenses yearly, and they are rasing talking about raising the legal driving age.However all of this does not take anything away from the dangers of driving in an alcohol or drug induced state, and it the laws should be even more stringent. I would propose mandatory breathalysers in cars, disabling the car for a period of time, if the driver was impaired.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Yes, but how many karma points are *gained* by drunken slashdot posting? I'd say it's probably an order of magnitude greater than the points lost =]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Actually, there is another, quite standard and uncontroversial, crime that is based on what might have been, namely reckless endangerment.
If you can't participate in an adult debate, don't participate. You haven't explained why the analogy is stupid, and if you had an argument, you could present it in a civil fashion.
It seems to me that there would be relatively fixed ratio of blood alcohol:mouth alcohol. If you've got science to say otherwise, speak up. Otherwise, it's your word versus theirs, and they've got the instrument engineers and medical technicians.
.3 or something lethal, which will give you a pretty easy alibi: You had wine with dinner at the resturaunt, and weren't intoxicated, but you were tested right away. Again, science needed. Show it, or they've got the instrument engineers and medical technicians.
It also seems to me that bread in your teeth wouldn't hold a huge amount of alcohol, and it would flash off relatively quickly anyway -- quickly enough that if you had been caught, you've probably just finished consuming alcohol recently, so you'll probably blow
Finally, diabetics may register 0.03 sober, but why? If it's because their body naturally metabolises sugars into alcohols, or because their bodies don't metabolise alcohols correctly below concentrations of 0.03, then it doesn't matter if they haven't had enough to drink to make it seem like they're really that drunk because their BAC could be 0.8. Again, science needed. Show it, or they've got the instrument engineers and medical technicians.
It's been a long time.
It's called hot-wire anemometry... google/wiki it.... and it cannot tell you what the gas is, only how fast it is going. It's used in high frequency measurement (i.e. velocities in turbulent streams) where it gives greater resolution than other methods such as using a pitot tube. It has nothing to do with specific heat, and with proper calibration (you do calibrate your instruments, right??) it will correct for the density changes due to elevation.
Just to poke another hole in your expert opinion, exactly how would you design something to pass a 'reference' gas over the anemometer pair at the same time to compare it to? The only generally known system that I know of that uses a reference gas for comparison is the exhaust gas analyzers that the DMV inspection stations use. They pass a laser through both your car's exhaust, and through a sample with known concentration, then compare the output brightness to figure out the concentration of the known sample with the exhaust sample.
Surely those sleeping behind the wheel are more likely to be involved in fatal car accidents than those who are driving under the influence? Yet I haven't seen any roadside checks for sleep depravation. There are no laws, at least in this jurisdiction, that require me to have at least eight hours of sleep before getting behind the wheel. Should something happen while sleep deprived you might get a careless driving charge. But if careless driving is good enough for driving under the influence of sleep deprivation, why isn't it good enough for driving under the influence of alcohol?
the obvious answer is to have a guy sitting in the court room, chugging beers until he's drunk, then demonstrate how it can fail badly in front of everyone. then make it fail on the judge, who should not be drunk.
It seems to me that there would be relatively fixed ratio of blood alcohol:mouth alcohol.
It varies between 1300 and 3000 from person to person
It also seems to me that bread in your teeth wouldn't hold a huge amount of alcohol, and it would flash off relatively quickly anyway
It behaves more like a capacitor. The amounts are minute, but enough to seriously impact a breathalyzer.
Finally, diabetics may register 0.03 sober, but why?
I dunno why, but they produce mouth vapors that can be mistaken for alcohol by these gadgets (their breath tends on the sweet side) with no corresponding BAC.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
You can refuse any and ALL tests which may incriminate
you. Easy.
Besides, cheap ass whore cops will hold you for 30 minutes
to allow the alcohol you drank a hour ago , to reach limits that
WILL make you over the mark. They are cowards and criminals. Simple !
The GNNA should be involved in this discussion!!!
On the other hand, a sober diabetic probably won't fail a HGN test, won't have divided attention problems, .03 won't justify action, and a blood test won't show alcohol intoxication.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Two can play at this game...
Sorry, your blood alcohol is potato the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
Unless he's in DC, where they like to pop people for .02. Never mind that that effectively drops the bar for diabetics by about .03.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Is this stuff published somewhere, though? If it is, you've pretty conclusively shown that breathalysers are unreasonable and arbitrary devices.
It's been a long time.
Anyone insane enough to drive in DC should be locked up anyway, drunk or sober.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Proprietary code? Trade secrets? After reading the excerpts from the "Base One report," would any self respecting programmer take credit for that drivel?
Does being moderated 'funny' give you karma points nowadays then ?
I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
Seriously, how hard is it to just not drink if you know you're going to be driving? This isn't brain surgery here folks. What this does is highlight a very basic problem of a good portion of today's population: their inability to have self control. If you're over 20 and peer pressure makes you feel you just *have* to drink to celebrate something, than you are an idiot.
There's no need to just "have a beer" or "just a few sips of wine" before driving home from *anything*. That's stupid, plain and simple.
Well - its heresay.
Where I grew up it snows and sometimes the roads are really bad.
Yup - a farmer in the area was drinking too much. So his friend said he'd drive him home. They hit the ditch and were stuck. So the friend left him in the car and walked 1/4 mile to the nearest farmhouse to get a tractor and help. By the time they got back with the tractor the cops had already charged the sleeping farmer with being in control of a licened vehical while being intoxicated.
I recall there was quite an uproar in the area.
Mind you - I didn't read the court case and never talked to the people actually involved.
Yes, except that there are usually laws against using weapons in most public places.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yes - you make many good arguments.
The issue however is that many people are charged with DUI when they are NOT drunks and are trying to be responsible. Yes - there are drunks and some of them are really bad. I personally know one in fact. This guy was wreaking 6 cars per year and sometimes more.
He has a criminal record because of this. This still didn't stop him. One time he and a friend were comming around a corner on the highway - pissed of course - and were traveling so fast that when they left the road they flew OVER TOP of the gas pumps. The car stopped when it hit the shop.
He's broken his neck. He's broken his legs. Yet he lives. Also he never killed anyone but that is probably just luck.
A menace? Yes - a real menace.
But DUI laws don't stop people like this. Furthermore there are other laws which can be used including dangerous driving.
The issue I addressed is the idea that an arbitrary Blood Alcohol number automatically determines if a person can handle a vehical. Next - there is no agreement on what that number should be. Some jurisdictions are at 0.05, others 0.08 and still others are at 0.10.
Then some correctly point out that while some people can handle a car at 120 others have trouble at 45. Yes - my point exactly. Perhaps the person who cannot handle a vehical at 45 should not have a license.
I think the laws are out of porportion with the crime - if there is one. In 99% of the case there is no criminal intent. At least in my circle of friends everyone takes this very seriously and tries not to break the law.
Now - that post that the Ontario Government estimates a DUI will cost over $20,000 before its over.
Really? Isn't this a little ridiculous?
How about what happened to a friend of mine? He was stopped one night. They didn't do a breath test. Yes he had a couple beers.
Instead they gave him an option. He could go down to the station and be checked, or they would call him a cab and tow his vehical to the pound. He chose the cab option. It cost him over $150 bux for towing charges and impound fees.
I see this as a type of extortion. What we have is a system where money is fleeced out of people via threats and over reactions and then this is justified somehow? Meanwhile the anti-drinking people thump presumably their bibles and ask for harsher penalties.
But did any of these DUI convictions stop that fellow who was a drunk from driving? Ans. No. It just cost his parents a lot of money. He never paid any of those fines. They did. He never had a job.
As I see it - a generally responsible person who might be a little over the limit should be held accountable. However that person should not end up with a criminal record and should not be grouped in with real criminals. In criminal law we have the concept of the "criminal mind".
You actually have to intend to commit the crime you are accused of. With DUI we usually just have a under estimation of a number (the Blood alcohol number) by people who have no means whatsoever to actually test what their BAC actually is. In these cases, its not a criminal offense. Its a mistake.
Also, the number of accidents compared to the DUI convictions is very low. As I see it the punishment is several orders of magnitude greater than the crime. But then its about the same with Marijuanna too isn't it?
Arnie had this is Total Recall.
I fully expect that within 15-20 years we will have robot cars. They might even be called Johnny Cabs. Who Knows...
The question to ask is this: If someone rides home in a Johnny Cab and his is over the BAC limit - is he a criminal?
What if a person rides home on his bicycle?
My understanding of the bicycle situation is that if the rider does not have a driver's license then he cannot be charged. If he does have a driver's license then he can be charged. Note that one does not need a driver's license to operate a bicycle.
What of a boat?
If the boat doesn't have a motor then you cannot be charged. If it does have a motor then you can be charged. This is true even if you are drift fishing. But what if the motor doesn't work? Are you safe if you throw the keys overboard?
What if you are sleeping in your car? Many people say charges have been laid. If so - then apparently if you leave the pub and figure maybe you better sleep it off - then you are still at risk.
What if you leave the keys with the bartender? What if you do this and forget there is a spare set in your wallet?
What if a drunk rides home on his horse?
The short of it is that I fully expect that by 2025 we will have robot cars. Personally I look forward to this. I think it will save a lot of lives because there are some really bad drivers out there. I also think this should be the basis of an OpenSource project because its going to be exceedingly difficult to write the software.
Notwithstanding this - when we get our JohnnyCabs... I expect anyone over the legal limit who rides in one will be charged with a DUI offense.
Sad eh?
Usually there is another surgeon available at short delay, and a copilot on the plane to take over, or at least an autopilot until the drunk pilot sobers up.
In an emergency situation, where the risks are outweighed by the benefits, sure: let the surgeon operate. In an emergency situation, such as being the only person available to take someone critically ill to hospital, I would not prosecute the drunk driver (although if stopped by the police, then that no longer applies as the police can take the ill person). But in most cases the situation is not an emergency, either for the surgeon, the pilot or the driver. In those cases they should be prevented from continuing at least until they are sober, and face sanction for endangering others.
It's more akin to the shenanigans DieBold pull
Actually, in this country - yes you do. If you don't react fast enough in the 'emergency brake' part of the test you fail your driving test. There is also an oral part of the test, where the examiner does check your decision making.
When you're driving a car, you're in command of (and solely responsible) for over one tonne of sizzling machinery. Those people who don't take this seriously (i.e. drive when they've had three beers, drive with defective eyesight, drive while too tired or while ill) should lose their driving privileges. Drivers who still drive when they shouldn't really ought to start planning now what they are going to say to the family of the other road user they may eventually kill.
I've been hit by a driver doing 50 mph, who had defective vision. It hurts just as much if they do that when they are drunk as it does with defective vision, and is just as negligent. If the driver had been four inches or so more to the left, he'd have been having to think of something to say to my Dad at the funeral.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I once applied for a job with Draeger Medical. I was not 'good' enough. And now this. *ROFL* Compared to this even the programs I wrote as kid on my Atari 400 were much better. Looks more like one of the team leaders was afraid of the competition.
This is a rolling average, a standard technique for filtering out fluctuations in data. You see variations on rolling averages used in situations from stock market graphs to real-time control systems, and anyone competent to be auditing any control or data gathering software should be familiar with it.
In addition, the summary is incorrect: this technique makes the *latest* reading have more weight than other readings, not the *first*.
If this is typical of the auditing company's results, I would take their comments with a grain of salt.
So instead of fines, you'd prefer tax increases across the board?
Oh wow that's the first laugh-out-loud moment I've had on slashdot in months, thanks.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
pretty amazing how this isn't considered being against the 5th amendment! One of the several DUI exemptions to the constitution.
... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2
0 3163004.html
also
The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as "the DUI exception to the Constitution." 1
Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn't provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving
Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn't justify violating individuals' constitutional rights, justices argued.
from http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/11
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Actually in the UK you are tested for reaction speed in two ways. Firstly you may have to perform an emergency stop during the practical element of the test and secondly you must pass a computer based reaction and decision making test.
This test is a series of videos that are shot from a drivers perspective. As the video plays you must click to mark where a hazard begins and click again as the hazard escalates. If you don't spot a hazard quickly enough or don't spot as it escalates then you fail. I think it's between 15 and 20 videos you have to watch and hazards can vary from kids playing beside the road to spotting that the brow of a hill is blind and you may meet something as you drive over it. Some can be pretty obscure and you need to be fairly perceptive to notice all the hazards.
As well as this you have to drive on real, busy roads for at least 45 minutes with an examiner. Perform maneuvers such as parallel parking, reversing around corners, bar parking, emergency stops etc. Finally you must pass a written exam on the rules of the road.
It's also illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving unless you use a hands free device. In fact you can be fined for doing anything that involves taking your hands off the wheel. For example woman was fined for eating an apple a few months back, I think the offense was driving without due care and attention.
Even after all this the roads are still jammed and people still try to drive into my car everyday on the way home from work. So I don't think saying that 'If people had to pass these types of tests we wouldn't have so many traffics jams' is entirely true. I think it's a good idea to make the test difficult, but it's not a cure all. I think chucking alcohol into the mix (even a small amount) can only be a bad thing as it's fairly evident that people find concentrating on driving tricky at the best of times!
(btw. I like a drink or three, so I'm not anti booze... I just don't partake if I'm driving.)
And thus you validate his argument: cars, unlike aircraft, are never in the air (unless you're Evel Knievel), and cars, unlike operations, can always be stopped without killing anyone (unless they're en route to the hospital, but then the police can take them instead).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Wow, you really don't fucking understand, do you? The blood alcohol limits aren't set because they define people who are shitfaced drunk. They're set because they define people who are sufficiently impaired to pose a danger to themselves or, more importantly, to others. Then again, it's apparent you're too fucking stupid to realize that the fact if you're "[talking] a little too much", it probably means you're sufficiently cognitively impaired such that your reaction time, attention, etc, are impacted, making you dangerous behind the wheel.
Yes, it may seem surprising that there is some much "general" algorithms in their product but yet they call it proprietary or a trade secret. However, I believe it really comes down to HOW they put all those general algorithms together that makes it proprietary - not the fact that the individual pieces are in the public domain, per se.
Similarly, in the military you'll find plenty of confidential documents that,when you read them would cause you to smack you head and say..."Duh, everybody knows that." or "I read that last week in xxxx". In those documents, however, the person or team preparing the document had done their research, cited all the relevant sources, and performed an analysis on that information that, despite coming from public and/or open sources, when put together comprised sensitive information of either strategic or tactical importance.
RD
Don't forget it happens to be legal to be in an intersection with the light red. Specifically, if you have entered the intersection while the light was still yellow, the light may turn red while you are in the middle of the intersection, and that is a legal situation.
Some red light cams are video cameras, and some take multiple photos. Incidentally, many also record the vehicle's velocity. A buddy of mine got a red light cam ticket, but the ticket said he was going 90+ mph. We don't have photo speed enforcement in my state so the state had nothing to say about that, but his wife was pissed that he was going 90+.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
No, actually its Billy Madision. I wrote the other post late at night. I get the two confused sometimes as well, but its from the academic competition at the end.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
There are laws pertaining to reckless driving in almost all jurisdictions. The point of DUI laws is that drinking drivers are far more likely to produce serious injuries and fatalities than other folks. Intoxication can be directly correlated to these events.
I have no idea why anyone would want to defend a drunk getting behind the wheel, unless that person is trying to justify his or her own immoral, unethical and pathetic actions.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Then try it in Federal Court. The product may be made in one state, but if it is distributed across state lines that makes it covered under Insterstate Commerce.
Who is defending drunk drivers? The point was that driving while sleep deprived is just as dangerous, unethical, and pathetic as driving while drunk. So why are there no laws to stop people from driving under those conditions? It is just as reasonable as the current drunk driving laws.
I was in NYC last weekend and somewhere around 33rd and 10th ave. there was a sobriety check. I had 2 very weak drinks that didn't even give me a little kick at the very time I had them, 3 hours before the road block. So, I knew that I was fully sober. I pull up, the cop looks at me and asks if I had anything to drink. I, all cocky, say "yes, officer, I had 2 drinks 3 hours ago." He, very politely asks me to move over into the left lane and hands me off to the next round of cops.
One of them takes my license and asks me if I wouldn't mind taking a "simple breathalyser test" and then being on my way. I said that I would have absolutely no problem with that. He passed my license to the third cop. This cop asked me again how much I had to drink. This time I lied, saying I had one drink a few hours ago. He leaned in very close, looked me straight in the eyes, asked me if I was the owner of my vehicle and whom it was registered to. I answered both questions. He glanced at the other cops, looked one more time at my license, handed it back to me and let me go with a "have a good night."
After reading so many posts here about never submitting to a breathalyser test and the variations in results, next time I'll just say what I usually say "nope, didn't drink anything tonight."
Oh,
Another thing you should perhaps be alarmed about is that its legal for a person on Phenobarb to drive. You might note that phenobarb is a far more powerful sedative than alcohol. IMHO this is mostly a witch hunt.
If the issue is minimizing danger on the road then we should address the real issues at hand. Instead we create a scapegoat.
Yes. Why don't you think about it... 40% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related. For teens dying while out on their prom night this raises to over 55%. People don't just get hurt they get killed. The number of senior citizen/teen related crashes are just not that high by themselves. Alcohol and driving is just a big no-no and you should know it.
I am appalled that this post ranked +4interesting when it implies that Drinking and Driving should be legal when every fact and statistic in existence supports otherwise! Buying guns are legal, People are legal why not combine the two and makie using guns on people legal? Your argument for legalizing a combination of components on the basis of their individual legality is ludicrous and ignorant. To answer your question, they made it illegal because allowing it causes great public harm and risk. (By the way, in 1982, before everybody cracked down on DUI/DWI, alcohol was related to 60% of traffic fatalities.)
Prohibition and your fear have nothing to do with each other. Prohibition meant that nobody could sell, manufacture or consume alcohol. Nobody is proposing that so your argument of comparison to something bad is baseless. A further fallacy in this post is the shifting of blame to separate problems such as fixing reaction speeds, intelligence tests, decision abilities, etc. Sure these all factor into accidents and fatalities. But there just isn't the same level of statistical proof that spending resources on these problems will improve the public good. Also they don't generally constitute negligent behavior. That is, a person is typically doing his best to react swiftly, think quickly and drive professionally. Are you going to make stupidity illegal? Based on whose relative measure?
Repeat after me: In every state driving is privilege, not a right. A privilege afforded to you by the state so long as you show that you are a trustworthy person acting in a responsible manner. Drinking and driving is not responsible, you shouldn't be allowed to drive... ever. Committing a criminal act while doing so should land your ass in jail for a long time. It has proven to be so probable of causing a criminal act (manslaughter is criminal) that the mere act of being drunk/influenced while driving should be (and was) made illegal.
I'll go you one step further: People who drink and get into accidents should be prosecuted for attempted murder, Such people involved in a fatality should be prosecuted for murder. Look, we all know it is bad. We all know it causes accidents and deaths. Therefore, choosing to do it can be argued as intentional murder.
In the time it took me to write this reply, somebody in the United States died because an idiot like you didn't think drinking and driving should be illegal and wanted to place the blame on senior citizens, teens and less significant problems. Almost two people actually.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Weave into the next lane without signalling? That's a paddling.
Doing it while drunk? That's a triple paddling.
Doing it while on your phone? That's a triple paddling.
Doing it while eating? That's a triple paddling.
Doing it while catching your house plant? That's a triple paddling.
Paddling the school canoe? Ooh, you better believe that's a paddling!
Amazing that Rehnquist and Stevens can vote this way on the DUI exception and the way they did on Kelo.
I'm gonna call Jefferson's Ghost to haunt both of 'em. Well the living one anyway.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No, I do understand - blood alcohol levels are for what an average person's impairment is like at a given alcohol concentration.
But, as I stated, I'm not a danger at 0.08. I drink a lot, I have a high tolerance for alcohol, and I'm a generally good driver, sober or not. Drugs affect people differently. I don't lose my coordination with alcohol until I'm rather drunk, but I get a loose tongue fairly quickly. You may be different.
But what's the difference? I won't convince you, and you will most assuredly not convince me. The only thing that's left is for you shut the fuck up and eat a dick. So off with you, and have at that, and try not to choke too loudly.
If I recall correctly. In any case, unless you missed it, this is not a stock market being measured. So why is a stock market version of "average" being used here? No comment, apparently.
.08, .08, .09. What is the average? 0.0833, wouldn't you say? Well, your "rolling average" is .085. Why is that the right one?
But in this case, say someone had a reading of
In any case, unless you missed it, this is not a stock market being measured. So why is a stock market version of "average" being used here?
OK, normally I'd respond with something like "this isn't limited to the stock market", but I already write that, so not only isn't my response 'no comment', it's right there in the same sentence that mentions stock markets! Did you stop reading half way through "You see variations on rolling averages used in situations from stock market graphs to real-time control systems"?
Rolling averages are used for removing short term fluctuations from a data source. They have been used for years in real time control systems (like this one) to efficiently clean up dirty data sources. The use of this kind of averaging is not only normal and expected, it's something that anyone who had ever written or worked on any software even vaguely similar to this should know about.
Either they're incompetent, or they're looking for things they can use to spin the results the way their customer wants. I suspect they're one of those "professional expert witness" companies, not a legitimate auditing firm at all.
Also, to head off the next obvious attack, I'm not making a claims about the quality of the software in the breathalyzer, I'm making a comment about the quality of the audit.
>>> A responsible drinker drinks at home
So people who don't drink at home are irresponsible?
A responsible drinker doesn't drive a CAR DRUNK.
BTW, you don't have to be DRIVING a CAR DRUNK to be charged with DUI. IF you're at home and leave your car windows down, just by putting the keys in the ignition to put the window up (after drinking) means you're in control (or operating while intoxicated) of your vehicle which is really how DUI laws are defined. There are also cases where people were arrested for DUI on a horse, an electric wheelchair, a golf cart and DUI on a bicycle.
People, like yourself, still believe DUI laws are about DRIVING a CAR while DRUNK on alcohol.
In fact you also don't have to had alcohol in order to be arrested for DUI. There are plenty of OTC and legal prescribed meds that can earn you a DUI.
FYI, RIDL stands for 'Responsiblity in DUI Laws'. Arresting someone in a wheelchair for DUI isn't responsible.